I don't think there would necessarily have been a set procedure for cutting up bodies (although perhaps, as Forbes Winslow thought, the way butchers joint animals in a consistent manner might be observable on a human corpse), but it does show that there was more than one post-mortem abdominal mutilator around at the time. And so possibly more than two.

I don't think there would necessarily have been a set procedure for cutting up bodies (although perhaps, as Forbes Winslow thought, the way butchers joint animals in a consistent manner might be observable on a human corpse), but it does show that there was more than one post-mortem abdominal mutilator around at the time. And so possibly more than two.

yup absolutely
but we also KNOW that she was doing it for practical reasons, and specifically to cut the body into smaller parts to boil and burn.

and obviously that she wasnt the torso killer.

__________________"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline

yup absolutely
but we also KNOW that she was doing it for practical reasons, and specifically to cut the body into smaller parts to boil and burn.

and obviously that she wasnt the torso killer.

On this note, I found a Wikipedia site about crime in Britain. Amongst other things, they have listed British serial killers. There were four of them in the 19:th century, three between 1900-1950, twelve between 1950 and 2000 and so far there have been two serial killers in Britain under the 21:st century.

I don´t know how reliable the list is (the Torso killer is not included - maybe the have him bundled up with the Ripper... ), but if it is anything to go by, then we have 21 serial killers over a period of 218 years, that is to say roughly one every ten years.

It is a background that is eminently suited to point out how unlikely it is that two serial killers would surface simultaneously and in the same city, both of them being mutilators and eviscerators, and both of them cutting away abdominal walls from their victims - for example.

On this note, I found a Wikipedia site about crime in Britain. Amongst other things, they have listed British serial killers. There were four of them in the 19:th century, three between 1900-1950, twelve between 1950 and 2000 and so far there have been two serial killers in Britain under the 21:st century.

I don´t know how reliable the list is (the Torso killer is not included - maybe the have him bundled up with the Ripper... ), but if it is anything to go by, then we have 21 serial killers over a period of 218 years, that is to say roughly one every ten years.

It is a background that is eminently suited to point out how unlikely it is that two serial killers would surface simultaneously and in the same city, both of them being mutilators and eviscerators, and both of them cutting away abdominal walls from their victims - for example.

Next check - out of the serial killers listed in Britain over the last 218 years, how many are proven eviscerators?

Jesus wept. The torso killer(s) was no more an "eviscerator" than Jack the Ripper was a "neck cutter".

Oh, and by the way, neither was Dennis Nilsen a "proven eviscerator". True, he emptied the body cavities of his victims, but this was in order to get rid of the gunk and to make the cutting up and disposal of body parts easier and less messy; ditto the torso killer on just the one occasion, and then he only took out the intestines, presumably because they'd dangle out of the hole he'd made if he left them there (not nice). These dismemberers evidently only eviscerated for practical reasons, not because they had a fixation with the contents of their victims' abdomen... which is categorically what Jack the Ripper was all about.

Jesus wept. The torso killer(s) was no more an "eviscerator" than Jack the Ripper was a "neck cutter".

Oh, and by the way, neither was Dennis Nilsen a "proven eviscerator". True, he emptied the body cavities of his victims, but this was in order to get rid of the gunk and to make the cutting up and disposal of body parts easier and less messy; ditto the torso killer on just the one occasion, and then he only took out the intestines, presumably because they'd dangle out of the hole he'd made if he left them there (not nice). These dismemberers evidently only eviscerated for practical reasons, not because they had a fixation with the contents of their victims' abdomen... which is categorically what Jack the Ripper was all about.

Hi Sam
I think you are correct re nilsen. Im no expert on Nilsen but it does seem it was done to help facilitate dismemberment and disposal of the body.

point taken.

__________________"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline

How strange that the beyond reasonable doubt keeps cropping up,and that apparently Hebberts reasonings give credence to it. What proofs are there.
Hebbert writes there were similarities,nothing more.Yes there were similarities,but as has been pointed out there were dissimilarities of which he says nothing.Does that mean we have to ignore them?That they do not count?
He also writes that a supposition can be made that the same person was responsible.He does not claim proof of it,or that it is beyong reasonable doubt.
Just that it can be supposed/assumed.No proofs it was the same saws or knives used on each and every victim,or even the same manner of death.Or that every death was a murder.
Yet we are expected to accept interpretations of his writings goes beyond a reasonable doubt or belief.